FROM

From any cultural or economically driven perspective, seeking to
replicate in another mammalian species an analog of human milk has profound
social, ethical and potentially adverse health consequences.

During two experiments by
the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born,
just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most
with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of
birth.

Reporter Richard Gray documented ‘Genetic modification of cows produce
human milk’ (The Telegraph, 04/4/11) in China where a herd of 300 cows has
been created by genetic engineers to produce ‘humanized’ milk with higher
than normal levels of lysozyme, an antimicrobial protein, immune-cell
boosting lactoferrin, and a third human milk protein alpha lactalbumin,
along with higher levels of milk fat and solids content.

The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the
DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were
implanted into surrogate cows.

However, according to Gray, during two experiments by the Chinese
researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of
the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with
gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.

With the funds to engage in this kind of capital-intensive genetic
alteration of animals for future commercial purposes, China is on the
leading edge of both animal and plant genome manipulation in a culture noted
for its lack of oversight and regulatory enforcement especially with regard
to consumer safety, environmental protection and animal health and welfare.
In this instance, the ends do not justify the means unless we accept what
amounts to genetic parasitism, since these kinds of genetic alteration and
cloning technology being applied are an order of magnitude far beyond the
normal, biological constraints of traditional selective breeding of farmed
animals which are in themselves not without adverse animal health and
welfare consequences.

But from any cultural or economically driven perspective, seeking to
replicate in another mammalian species an analog of human milk has profound
social, ethical and potentially adverse health consequences. There surely
can be no substitute for the emotional bonding of natural human
breast-feeding or for the essential nutrients, including regulatory
hormones, essential fatty acids, and antibodies in the milk of a healthy,
well nourished woman who ideally consumes organically certified foods and
beverages and eats ‘low’ on the food chain during both pregnancy and the
lactation period before weaning the child onto a similar healthful diet.

Dr. Michael W. Fox is a well-known veterinarian, former vice president of
The Humane Society of the United States, former vice president of Humane
Society International and the author of more than 40 adult and children’s
books on animal care, animal behavior and bioethics. He is also a graduate
veterinarian from the Royal Veterinary College, London, whose research lead
to a PhD (Medicine) and a DSc (ethology/animal behavior) from the University
of London, England.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.